Delhi District Court
State vs Prem Nath on 12 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI NAIN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 437/2015
U/s 279/304A IPC
PS: Swaroop Nagar
State vs. Prem Nath
Date of Institution of case: 18.01.2017
Date of Judgment reserved:02.12.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 12.12.2023
JUDGMENT
CIS Number : 250/17
Date of Commission : 08.08.2015
of offence
Name of the : Ct. Ram Niwas No. 1174/NW PS Swaroop
complainant Nagar, Delhi.
Name of the accused : Prem Nath S/o Harnam Dass R/o H. No.
284, Indra Vihar, Mukharji Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained 279/304A IPC
of
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of order : 12.12.2023
Final Order : Acquitted
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Date: 2023.12.12
FIR No. 437/15 Page 1 of 13
Nain 18:13:40 +0530
State Vs. Prem Nath
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Accused is facing trial for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that on 08.08.2015 at about 4:00 pm, in front of Joseph Marry School near Hanuman Mandir Burari Road, Nathu Pura, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Swaroop Nagar, accused was found driving DTC Bus bearing No. DL1PB6314, in a manner so rash and negligent, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the above said vehicle in above said manner, accused hit against the motorcyclist who was riding the said motorcycle bearing no. DL1SN6444 and thereby, caused death of the said motorcyclist namely Surender Singh. According to prosecution, accused committed offences punishable under Section 279/304A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, upon investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the accused.
Investigation
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity. The accused was arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused and challan was presented in the Court.
3. The cognizance of the alleged offences was accordingly taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and after procuring the presence of accused through instrumentality of Court, he was admitted on bail, the offences being bailable FIR No. 437/15 Page 2 of 13 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date: 2023.12.12 State Vs. Prem Nath Nain 18:13:46 +0530 in nature and after supplying the copy of chargesheet and documents to accused, provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were also complied with.
4. On finding the sufficient grounds to proceed against accused for offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC, the notice of accusation was served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined ( 5 ) five witnesses in all.
6. PW1 is Ct. Ram Niwas, No. 1174, PS Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that on 08.08.2015, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar at beat no.8, vide DD No. 12A. He further deposed that on that day at about 04:0004:15 pm while patrolling, he reached near Joseph Marry School Hanuman Mandir, he saw one motorcycle was plying on the road and behind the same one DTC Bus bearing no. DL1PB6314 was going. The said bus was in high speed. The average speed of the bus was about 60 km/hour. He further deposed that meanwhile, the driver of the above said bus struck against the motorcycle from behind. He was present at the Hanuman Mandir. After hearing the noise of accident, he reached at the spot and saw that the motorcycle was plying on the road and the head/temple of the motorcycle rider was crushed by the front tyre of the bus. He further deposed that he alongwith some other public persons raised alarm and he signaled the accused to stop the bus and he stopped the said bus. He further deposed that the driver of he offending vehicle revealed his name as Prem Nath. Meanwhile, the ERV reached at the spot and took the injured to BJRM hospital. The number of the motorcycle was DL Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date: 2023.12.12 FIR No. 437/15 Page 3 of 13 Nain 18:13:51 +0530 State Vs. Prem Nath 1SN6444 and he make of the same was TVS. IO recorded his statement when he came back at the spot from hospital, which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that IO had seized the offending vehicle vide memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A. The motor cycle was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A. IO had also seized the driving licence of the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/E bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the documents related to the offending vehicle were also seized vide memo Ex.PW1/F bearing his signatures at point A. IO had prepared site plan at his instance on which he had put his signatures which is Ex. PW1/G bearing his signatures at point A. This witness was also crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
7. PW2 is Pradeep S/o Jagpal Singh R/o VPO Jakhauli, Sonepat, Haryana. He deposed that on 09.08.2015, he received information regarding the death of his uncle Surender Singh in road accident. He went to the BJRM Hospital Mortuary where he identified his dead body. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. The dead body was handed over to Rohit and him for last rites by the IO. Same is mark A1.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
8. PW3 is Ct. Kailash No. 2634/NW PS Maurya Enclave, Delhi. He deposed that in the year 2017, he was at PS Swaroop Nagar. On 09.08.2015, he joined the investigation of the present case. He further deposed that on that day, he alonwith IO went to the mortuary of BJRM hospital. Thereafter, body Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain FIR No. 437/15 Page 4 of 13 Nain Date: 2023.12.12 18:13:54 +0530 State Vs. Prem Nath of deceased Surender Singh was handed over to the relatives by the IO.
This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
9. PW4 is Sh. Mukhtyar Singh, Traffic Inspector (DTC), posted at Shahdara Checking Office, DTC, Delhi. He deposed that in the year 2015, he was ATI and posted at BBM DTC Depot. On the date of incident, h received a call from the police and he went to the place of incident and there he he handed over the photocopy of documents related to the bus in question i.e. RC, Permit, Insurance etc. Same were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/F bearing his signature at point B. Certificate of fitness is mark A bearing his signatures at point A. Copy of permit is mark B bearing his signature at point A. Copy of insurance is mark C bearing his signature at point A. Copy of RC is mark D bearing his signature at point A. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
10. PW5 is SI Dinesh Chandra, No. D4339, FRRO.
He deposed that on 08.08.2015, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as SI. On that day, on receipt of DD no. 14A to him, which is already exhibited as A2, he alongwith Ct. Kailash went to the spot i.e. near Hanuman Mandir, in front of Josef Marry School, Burari Road, Swaroop Nagar, where they met with the Ct. Ram Niwas and he told them that injured was shifted to BJRM Hospital by ERV Van. Thereafter, Ct. Ram Niwas remained at the spot and he alongwith Ct. Kailash went to the BJRM Hospital.
He collected the MLC of injured Surender from the concerned doctor. The doctor declared the injured Surender as brought dead with the alleged Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain FIR No. 437/15 Page 5 of 13 State Vs. Prem Nath Nain Date: 2023.12.12 18:13:58 +0530 history of RTA. He preserved the dead body of deceased deceased Surender in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital for 72 hours. Ct. Kailash remained at the hospital.
Thereafter, he came back to the spot and he recorded the statement of Ct. Ram Niwas, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he prepared rukka, which is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A, on the basis of statement of Ct. Ram Niwas and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Ram Niwas came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him.
He further deposed that he prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Ram Niwas, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/G bearing his signature at point B. That they had reached at the spot, one motorcycle and DTC bus were present at the spot in accidental condition and accused Premnath was also present at the spot.
He further deposed that on 08.08.2015, he served notice u/s 133 MV Act to the Depot Manager of DTC bus, which is Ex.PW5/B bearing his signature at point A. The Depot Manager gave reply of notice, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW4/A. He arrested the accused vide memo which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, accused was personally searched vide personal search memo, same is Ex.PW5/C bearing his signature at point A. Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain FIR No. 437/15 Page 6 of 13 Nain Date: 2023.12.12 18:14:03 +0530 State Vs. Prem Nath He further deposed that he seized the DTC bearing no. DL1PB6314 and motorcycle bearing no. DL1SM6444 vide memos already exhibited as Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point B. He seized the DL and Badge of accused vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW1/E bearing his signatures at point B. He seized the relevant documents of bus vide memos already exhibited as Ex.PW1/F bearing his signatures at point F. He released the accused on police bail on production of sound surety. He deposited the case property in the malkhana. He recorded supplementary statement of Ct. Ram Niwas.
He further deposed that on next day, he went to the BJRM Hospital and recorded the dead body identification statement of Pradeep Kumar, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point B. After postmortem, dead body of deceased was handed over to his relatives vide handing over memo, which is Ex.PW5/D bearing his signature at point A. He recorded the statement of ct. Kailash.
He further deposed that on 10.08.2015, he got conducted the mechanical inspection of offending vehicle i.e. DTC and motorcycle through Mechanical Inspector Devender Kumar, vide memos already exhibited as Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 bearing his signatures at point A. He got verified the documents of DTC bus from the depot.
On next day, he released the above mentioned DTC bus on superdari. He received the PM report of deceased from BJRM Hospital. After completion of investigation, he prepared chargesheet and filed the same in the court for trial.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed Jyoti by Jyoti Nain Date: 2023.12.12 Nain 18:14:15 +0530 FIR No. 437/15 Page 7 of 13 State Vs. Prem Nath
11. The accused admitted certain the documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C and the examination of formal witnesses qua such documents was dispensed with. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Pursuant thereto, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances, were put to the accused. The accused choose to lead defence evidence.
12. In defence evidence, accused examined one witness as DW1 i.e. Ram Niwas Gir S/o Sh. Hari Gir R/o 426E, Dayanand Marg, East Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi.
DW1 Ram Niwas deposed that in the year of 2015, he was working as a Conductor in DTC Bus, Delhi. Now, he has retired as a Conductor. He further deposed that he knew the accused Prem Nath as he was also working as a driver on DTC Bus.
He further deposed that the accident took place on 08.08.2015, at about 04:00 pm. He alongwith accused Prem Nath were doing duty on the same bus. Accused Prem Nath was the driver and he was working as a conductor on the said bus. He stated that it is correct that on that day, no accident took place with their bus. He stated that it is correct that accused had made call at 100 Number after stopping their DTC Bus. He stated that it is correct that Police reached at the spot and took the accused in the PS. He stated that it is correct that the Police has prepared false case against the accused. He stated that it is correct that deceased was already lying on the road.
This Defence witness was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Date: 2023.12.12
Nain 18:14:18 +0530
FIR No. 437/15 Page 8 of 13
State Vs. Prem Nath
13. I have heard the rival contentions of Ld. APP for the State and also of the Ld. Defence Counsel.
14. On the basis of the above oral and documentary evidence on record, learned APP requested for conviction of the accused and severe punishment as per law.
15. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that PW1 i.e. complainant Ct. Ram Niwas is not a reliable witness, since, being a police official he has supported the case of the prosecution. That there is no independent witness in this case. That even though PW1 has claimed himself to be an eye witness of the incident, he was not actually present at the spot and came at the site of incident only after hearing the noise of the accident as has been admitted by him in his examination in chief. Further argued that the IO did not examine any public witness when the incident happened around 04:00 pm. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel that PW1 was hesitant to identify the accused and only after a while, identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. Ld. Counsel argued that the accused was the one who had himself made a call at 100 number reporting the incident, since, he saw the victim lying on the road after the accident. That the same fact is not denied by the IO i.e. PW5 SI Dinesh Chander in his crossexamination. Finally, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel that PW1 was a tutored witness, since, he himself admitted of writing some of the particulars of the case on his left hand during his crossexamination. Thus, learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt as prosecution has as such failed to establish the Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain FIR No. 437/15 Page 9 of 13 Nain Date: 2023.12.12 18:14:22 +0530 State Vs. Prem Nath rashness and negligence of the accused in the present case. Accordingly, he prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
16. I have heard the final arguments and have given my careful thoughts to the evidence on record.
17. This Court has weighed the rival submission made on behalf of the State as well as on behalf of defence in light of a testimonies and material appearing on record. It is observed, that in the present case the accused has been charge sheeted for the commission of offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
18. To sustain the conviction of the accused, first and foremost, it becomes incumbent to carefully probe and scrutinize the deposition of sole eye witness i.e. PW1 Ct. Ram Niwas examined by the prosecution in the present case. On careful scrutiny of the examination in chief as well as crossexamination of PW1 shows that he was indeed not an eye witness to the accident as argued by Ld. Defence Counsel. It is admitted by PW1 that at the time when the accident took place he was present at the Hanuman Mandir and it was only after hearing the noise of the accident, he reached the spot and saw the motorcycle of the victim lying on the road.
19. It is further admitted case of the prosecution witnesses that the spot of accident was a public place where many public persons had gathered after the accident but no statement of any public person was recorded.
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Date: 2023.12.12
Nain 18:14:25 +0530
FIR No. 437/15 Page 10 of 13
State Vs. Prem Nath
PW1 Ct. Ram Niwas deposed during his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused that no public person was examined by the IO in in his presence.
PW5 SI Dinesh Chandra i.e. IO deposed during his cross examination by Ld. Counsel that he requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot by making different excuses.
Here I would like to reliance upon: Pradeep Narayana V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930, that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused. Similarly it was held in the case of Kuldeep Singh V. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR 103 and Passi @ Prakash V. State of Haryana 2001(1) RCR 435, that whenever any recovery in connection with the place of the commission of offence is made, public persons must be made witness.
20. Further, presence of the sole eye witness i.e. PW1 at the spot appears skeptical and doubtful, him being a police witness in the absence of any public witness. Also, tutoring of PW1 as pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel can not be ruled out, since, he himself has admitted of writing the particulars of the case on his left hand.
21. Further, during his crossexamination, IO SI Dinesh Chander has shown his ignorance to the fact that it was accused who made a call at 100 number. IO has not denied that it was accused who made a call at 100 number regarding the incident. Thus, the same goes against the case of prosecution where PW1 FIR No. 437/15 State Vs. Prem Nath Page 11 of 13 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date:
Nain 2023.12.12
18:14:28 +0530
has stated that he alongwith some other public persons raised alarm regarding the incident and signaled the accused to stop the bus, on which, he actually stopped the bus. Had it been the case, IO could have outrightly denied the fact that it was accused who had made 100 number call regarding the incident.
22. Finally, it can also be said that initially PW1 did show some hesitation in identifying the accused as in his examination in chief, he stated that since, the incident was about 3 years old, accused seemed to be the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, in his crossexamination PW1 has stated that "As far as I think it was the accused who is present in the court was driving the bus". Thus, it can be inferred that PW1 did show some hesitancy in identifying the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, in totality, this court is of the opinion that the accused has been successful in punching holes in the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused.
23. No doubt wrong acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of the innocent man. The consequences of conviction of innocent men are far more serious and its reverberation would be felt by an innocent all his life in a civilized society, therefore, it is the duty of the court to avoid any wrongful conviction and to grant benefit of doubt where ever the need arises. If two views are possible, one favouring the accused and the other against him, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and in the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Date: 2023.12.12
Nain 18:14:32 +0530
FIR No. 437/15 Page 12 of 13
State Vs. Prem Nath
24. At this stage, court further deems it fit to state that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case, it is pellucid that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are certain inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses examined by prosecution.
25. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused and therefore, the accused Prem Nath is hereby acquitted from the offences u/s 279/304A IPC.
26. Previous Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. Endorsement if any, be cancelled and documents if any, be returned, against acknowledgment after due verification.
27. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
28. This Judgment consists of 13 pages and all pages bear my signature.
Digitally signed Announced and dictated directly Jyoti by Jyoti Nain Date: into the computer in open court 2023.12.12 on 12th Day of December, 2023. Nain 18:14:36 +0530 (Jyoti Nain) MM07/North District Rohini Courts, Delhi. FIR No. 437/15 Page 13 of 13 State Vs. Prem Nath